tv Glenn Beck FOX News December 29, 2009 2:00am-3:00am EST
the interview. nothing will stop her. we are closing down shop -- even with the fire alarm. choip welcome to the glenn beck show. will the economy be better next year? will the government learn to stay out of business? and will you be safer? not sure? let's go! charles: are we trying to bail out the people or restoring confidence? we're trying to keep kids in school and trying to put food on their tables. these sentences tell us why americans have to be afraid of this administration and
government as an extension of the notion that they know better than we do, so they're obligated to shepherd us like little children running across the street in lower manhattan n lower manhattan, some of the schools recently came under fire for using leashes to control large classes of kids, particularly pre-k kids. i'm not sure how that issue was resolved but it looked a little inhuman seeing the tots chained together but those are pre-k kids, not adults. the rules, regulations and endless field trips serve to keep adult americans on a leash. in the process, our dreams are yanked back and eventually recede so far into the back of our minds we forget we have them anymore. you don't restore confidence by giving someone a welfare check. people that work all their lives don't get giddy over unemployment benefits. the extension of benefits sends several messages including things aren't getting better, oh, but let the government put
food on your table and you can pay us back later by keeping us in office. charlie rangel, an old time new york liberal who still hasn't seen the destructive nature of big government replacing the inmate desires that god blessed us all with, no, representative rangel, we do not want the government to put food on our table. giving more money has nothing to do with keeping kids into schools, and the highest recipients have the most dropouts. when is the message going to sink through? people make things happen because they have this quirk known as survival instincts. we're born with it. the spirit of this nation to take those instincts to a different level, while a lot of people are sitting around their kitchen tables right now wondering how they will pay their bills, many are trying to figure out how to make a better mousetrap. it is americans that think about being extraordinaire rix as for confidence, that's going to
come back with trust and after all the gimmicks and sales jobs are dumped. we are being coddleed in such a way that is stifling our aibts our ability to move as a country. if we can keep charlie rangel and company from feathering the beds of union members and taking our tax dollars, trust will ease back. if we can stop pledging billions to the rest of the world to push ideas americans don't even agree with, trust will ease back. if the president puts his skin into the game and he understands he can't really give himself a b minus when the economy is moving along at a f minus. the government needs to shut up, get out of the way and stop taked our hard-earned money. more importantly, stop selling the notion we can't do it on our own. the country must resist attempts at the culture to create right now of depend den si. we need to believe that with our greatest fears lie our
greatest opportunities. we don't want to think a paved road to government handouts is a better option than the scary unchartered road that is fraught with dangers and highs and lows and also an empowerment that makes life wonderful. a line from one of my favorite poems go, i shall tell this with a sign, somewhere ages hence, two roads submerged in a wood and i took the one less traveled and that has made all the difference." robert frost. will the government get out of the way and let private industry work in 2010? here to discuss, the editor of real clear markets, and steven pearl, editor of the national review and my friend, and author of crash roots 2.0, how to profit from the economic collapse. peter, is the government going to get oust way and let the free markets work? >> i sure hope they would, but it doesn't look like they will. the problem is we're in a serious economic ditch here. we're not going to get out of it
if the government keeps digging it deeper. we need the government to get out of the economy, to get oust way and stop diverting resources. the government doesn't have resources. it has to take them from the private sector to give them back to us. when it does, that it undermines our economy, makes us less productive and less competitive. >> the interesting thing about all of this, john, is that we keep hearing the president taking these victory laps, you know, the g.d.p. is up, unemployment is down, everything we are doing is working, it's working, so let's do more. how do we resist that, or should we? >> i think we should definitely resist it. we need to get back to first principles. there is nothing in the constitution that empowers the federal government to oversee economic growth, and so in that sense, i very much agree with peter here, the government has no resources of its own, and so we need to stop empowering it by virtue of it taking money from the private sector in order to give it back. economic depressions are a
misnomer. they cannot occur if government is doing very little, and if the government would just get out of the way, the economy would be fine. >> but let's get steven in here, though. steven, where do you see all of this going, because i hear a lot of people who know better, particularly professionals on wall street and other places but it still seems to be falling on a deaf ear in washington. >> it absolutely is. to get back to what you said in your opening monologue, nothing better embodies we know better than you do what is for you than the individual mandate in the healthcare bill that congress, unfortunately, looks at the past. this is going around and telling everyone american citizen that regardless of whether or not, according to their own cost benefit analysis it makes sense for them to have health insurance, which, by the way is going to be more expensive thanks to the regulations in this bill, you have to have it. you have to have it or pay a fine. the i.r.s. will be determining whether or not your health insurance plan is up to the
government standard, and so, yeah, they're basically telling you, we know better what's good for you than you do, and we say that you have to have a health insurance. >> peter, the thing is though, every time someone in the administration they speak and say, hey, in january we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month and now we're on the cuss cusp of creating the jobs, we created the jobs as if the government did that. >> you have to look at productive jobs and make work. just because we have more jobs in the government or in the some of the sector doesn't mean that our company is better off. we're shedding manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate. just because the g.d.p. is going up, it doesn't mean the economy is getting better. you have to look at why it is going up. right now, g.d.p. is rising because consumers are spending borrowed money and the government is spending borrowed money and all we're doing is digging ourselves into a deeper hole. we're in more debt now than when the crisis began.
charles: what is the danger of that? >> we don't have enough savings in this country. we don't have enough production, enough manufacturing and enough investment. we can't spend our way out of this crisis. we can't borrow our way out of this crisis, we have to produce and work our way out of it. we can't do that with the government interfering in the economy. charles: so we have to go through a certain amount of pain as a nation, suck it up as a nation before we can really come out of this the right way? >> absolutely, but unfortunately, based on what we're doing now, we're going to have to suck up a lot more pain over a much longer period of time because the government refuses to allow the free market to function. charles: john, i read that you thought a lower g.d.p. was a better sign for the economy. explain that to me. >> well, the reason for that is what drove down the revised g.d.p. number was a higher, quote, trade deficit. to me, a trade deficit is a misnomer. they don't exist, but what they do signify in economic terms is that foreigners are a
complementing us with imports and increased foreign investment in u.s. companies, and so the higher trade deficit drove down g.d.p. and i would just add one other thing to this. i have a problem with the notion that we need to experience pain to get back on track. implicit there is that the government propping up thinks that we are brad for the economy which is somehow helping us. it would be cleansing and good for the economy to let failed businesses fail, to get rid of fannie and freddie and a lot of these things bringing down the economy. >> but you would agree also that the people who worked at the failed businesses would experience a certain amount of pain. i know ronald reagan and paul volcker took that rout and their popularity went down the tubes an america did experience a lot of pain before things got better. >> i see what you're saying there, but i think we all agree that to stimulate any company, to profit up is to pressure other aspects of the economy. by virtue of propping up the fannie's, freddies, g.m.'s and
chryslers, we're depressing other more productive sectors in the economy, so i don't buy the pain argument even there. what we're seeing is propping up failed concepts that are destroying capital. the unseen here is what businesses would sprout up out of nowhere, the microsofts, the googles that would sprout up if the government were not propping up failed entities that are making us weaker, not stronger, and unhappier, not happier. >> a lot of the pain is going to be for politicians who have to level with the american people and tell the truth. politicians are afraid they might not get re-elect fire department they have to deal with these issues. everybody is not going to share equally in the pain. some people will immediately benefit if we stop artificially stimulating the economy. the pom titions, it's easy for them to claim credit for saving a job, but they don't see the job they destroy in the process, the more productive jobs. a lot of people will get upset if the government gets out of the way and lets housing prices come down and lets certain businesses fail that need to
fail but in the long run, that's the best thing that can happen to the economy and it's not going to take that hong. free markets work quickly to purge these imbalances from the economy. it might only take six months or a year and then we'll have real growth. right now, we're creating the next great depression, only this will be an inflationary depression. charles: peter, do you agree with that, that we're in a direction -- well, it's obvious we won't turn away from there, but if we don't, we could create the next great depression? oh, sure. it is not just a theoretical thing with seen versus unseen consequences. we can actually look at what is happening with small businesses right now. they're starved for capital. they list their number one fear is the threat of more and uncertain regulations. they don't know what regulations are coming down the pike now. the reason that capital has dried up for them is because we're propping up the fannies and the freddies and essentially the financial institutions that failed before.
charles: you're saying there is a limited pool of money out there and with the government going after so much money, it is crowding out money available for other free market enterprises? >> well, a lot of capital is locked up in very unproductive financial giants, right, which are getting themselves healthy again by pretending that their bad assets don't exist, borrowing from the fed at near zero rates and lending to the government at 2 or 3%. let's start a bank, me and you. we can make a fortune doing that. why would you lend to a risky startup company when you could just make money risk free all day? when the president called the c.e.o.'s of these major banks to chew their ears a couple of weeks ago, all he wanted to do was lecture them about how they need to lend to small businesses and all they wanted to talk about was underwriting more build america bonds, helping the u.s. government to borrow more. it's a safe bet for them so that's why small businesses can't grow an can't create jobs.
>> in ord forebusiness to grow, they need capital and it comes from savings. there are no savings in this country. they are diverted to the government, diverted to the financial entities and with the fed keeping interest rates at practically zero, who is going to save? there is no return to savings. everyone is going into debt. there is no capital for small businesses because it is being taxed out of existence. charles: you think the federal reserve needs to raise interest rates? >> absolutely. they are too low. we got into this trouble with low interest rates. we won't get out unless we let them rise. certain overleveraged financial institutions will not survive. the government will have to deal with its massive liabilities and the short-term nature of the national debt but we can't have a capitalistic economy without capital. we can't have capital without savings and no one is going to save if they don't get paid to save. charles: john, what is your formula for turning us around? does it include the fed raising rates? >> slightly. my view is i think the fed
should float the funds rate. the interest rate is what intersects supply and demand for capital, and it offends me that a central bank would try to set this rate, so the idea thing would be for the fed to say we're no longer going to set the rate. let the market set it, in which case it would rise higher and we would get higher savings as a result, but i think the biggest factor here, and this has to come from the u.s. treasury, is if you want job creation, you need investment, and a stable dollar is what drives investment. the u.s. treasury must get serious about defining a dollar in terms of a value that will be the same today, tomorrow as it will be ten years from now. that is the number one thing in my mind if you want to get the economy again, stabilize the dollar's value. charles: steven, how can we do that, with the fed monetizing debt and some of these programs out there? i mean, it's really a shock, in my opinion, that the dollar is not even lower. >> well, you hit the nail on the head. monetizing the debt. what the fed is doing is buying
buying -- it's buying mortgage-backed securities at an astonishing pace from the agencies, fannie and freddie, and so what's going to happen then is when they try to -- that's putting liquidity into the economy. when they try to soak that back up, they're going -- the only way they can do that is to sell the mortgage-backed securities that they purchased but it's very unlikely that they're going to be able to get full value for those. there is going to be a lot of liquidity out there that the fed can't soak up. that's a recipe for inflation to say nothing of the deficits we're running, a trillion dollars a year, stretching it to ten years. >> that's the trade-off that the government is making. you can't have a strong dollar and stimulus programs simultaneously. they are mutually exclusive. the way the government is trying to prop up the economy is by debasing the dollar. they can't do both. it would be great if we could define it in terms of gold but that will immediately impose discipline on the government. they won't be able to you run
the huge deficits and will have to back out of the financial market because that's the only way they can keep the currency sound. charles: with respect to inflation, do you think this will be the big story of 2010? >> i know inflation is going to get worse. whether it is going to run out of control or take into 2011 or 2012 but we will have a major currency crisis coming soon. it will dwarf the financial crisis and send consumer prices absolutely ballistic as well as interest rates and unemployment. charles: what does that mean for people watching this show? >> it means their lives will get more difficult. it means things they need to buy like food and energy will be much more expensive. interest rates are going to rise and their entire standard of live something going to plunge. i'm hoping the government doesn't respond to this inflation with price controls because that's going to make it even worse. now you're going to be waiting in long lines to get basic food items or to get energy because there will be shortages. people might be going to the black market. charles: you're talking like
zimbabwe, something like that actually happening in this country? >> it will happen if we don't change policies. there is still time to change. i'm running for the united states senate so i can try to change that myself, but if we don't reverse course, if we continue to stimulate, we will end up with hyperinflation and it will be like zimbabwe. charles: more of what is ahead for this economy and your money in 2010 when we come back. glenn: do you ever lie awake at night and think, man, i wish i had a juggler on hand to help explain the role of government interference in our lives or maybe a big pile of monopoly money to make sense of foreign debt? lucky day for you! look no further. just record this show or d.v.r. it every day at 5:00 p.m. eastern. i mean, i'm there you for, baby. you know what i'm saying? i think i made most of the audience throw up in their mouths just a little bit. there is nothing like a little glenn after hours.
charles: santa claus brought government entities unlimited financial support for the next three years! it was a gift that was given as children were nestled snug in their beds an traders were at the malls making last-minute gift purchases an mothers were putting the final touches on the sugar plum dishes. the treasury has given these government-sponsored entities an unlimited financial lifeline and removed requirements to shrink
their mortgage holdings by 10% a year. what does it all mean, to suggest that fannie mae and freddie mac will need a lot more than the $400 billion that was allotted to their recovery but that barely scratches the surface of all the money that has been poured into these entities. look at the money that has already flowed into their coffers. from treasury, they bought senior mortgage backed securities $11 billion. enterprise backed securities, $202 billion. mortgage-backed securities, which is a way of explaining it? sort of -- it is an investment backed up by an an asset held by fannie mae and freddie mac, which for the most part are plorts gajs. they try to use the cash flow to pay it off. it's toxic. that's all they really have. federal reserve, by the way, in the action, bought $911 billion of mortgage backed security and regular debt from these
companies, $150 billion worth. remember, like the healthcare bill, fannie mae was once heralded as the ultimate savior, an engine that would provide mortgages to low-income families, the centerpiece of the new bill, and in the last nine quarters has lost $120 billion, and freddie, created to be a competitor lost $69.7 billion. that's just these two entities in the last nine quarters. it is shocking stuff and makes me wonder how much healthcare will really cost at the end of ten years, 20 years. my son made out good with a souped up laptop and guitar but this is a heck of a gift, unless you're the one paying for t back with our roundtable. john, i want to start with you. this is, first of all, it was done so -- it was like the darkness after the markets closed, everyone is shopping, getting ready for christmas. they pushed this through,
unlimited money -- this is nuts! help me -- help us figure this out or understand it. >> well, perfect timing when the press are on vacation, but really are any of us surprised by this? charles: i am surprised by this one, john. i'm a little surprised by this. >> it was always by virtue of their ability to issue gargantuan amounts of debt and always clear that the government backed these entities implicitly and this ensures future crises in the future because now we know fannie and freddie can continue in their undisciplined ways and the taxpayers will back them up but what offends me the most about this is that we continue this bipartisan politically correct notion that americans are made better off if a government with no resources of its own underwrites 9/10's of all mortgages. this is an impoverishing idea that ties people to houses at a time when they need to be mobe beale and when capital is mobile
itself. this is anti-growth and it is offensive that we're continuing in this direction. >> for years, while fannie and freddie were helping to inflate the housing bubble, i was publicly predicting their bankruptcy. i did it on fox. charles: you did. there was a lot of times we debated. you were right. i was wrong. go ahead. >> one of the things i didn't know for sure when i was making these predictions is whether the government would do the right thing and let them fail or the wrong thing and bail them out. now we know. they did the wrong thing. they should have let them go bankrupt. we don't need fred i did, we don't need fannie. they have poisoned the housing markets. charles: but if they're gone who facilitates 9/10's of the mortgages? >> real estate prices have to adjust to the point where the private sector will finance them. the reason there is no private money for mortgages is because real estate prices are too high. yes, they're too high. they have to be able to come down. meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen, the federal government has
transformed trillions of dollars of fannie and freddie paper into treasury debt. it is now indistinguishable. the national debt has gone through the roof and now we have more crowding out because now all this debt is government guaranteed f a businessman wants to borrow money, he can't get a government guarantee. why is the federal government now -- 95% of the mortgages financed now are financed by fannie and freddie or the f.h.a. and the private sector is totally out. charles: i don't get it, steven. this administration says too big to fail, and when you say that they have a blank check, it can't get any bigger than that. >> that's right. it's very troubling. here is a detail that i found interesting when this story came out. at the sameat the same time, tha story about the executives of these two companies, the c.e.o.'s of fannie and freddie, the details of their pay packages was releaseed and neither of these executives took app any stock as part of their
compensation. it is $6 million apiece, mostly cash and no stock, which is unusual for the c.e.o. of a publicly traded company. you think that these guys know something that we don't? charles: not only is it unusual but the pay czar is not around now, when he has gone around to all the other companies that took taxpayer money and said you got to take a haircut. this is beyond the pail this $6 million they are getting. >> that's right, none of it in stock. i know their stock has gone up on the news, that the government is giving them an unlimited credit card, but look at what their executives are doing. they don't have any stock. what i think that this means is that they know and we should know that this signals that the fannie and freddie are going to get much more aggressive about loan modifications and loan write-offs. there was a report out from credit swils today that --
credit suisse today that what this signals is that fannie and freddie are going to start buying out troubled mortgages out of their portfolios and aggressively writing them down. congress is adamant that these agencies do more to mitigate foreclosures, even if that's bad for the economy as a whole, even if real estate prices do into no fall further, even if it needs more losses for the taxpayers, the most important thing is modifying these loans, preventing foreclosures, even if people bore he rowed way more than they can -- even if people borrowed more than they can afford. it will mean big losses for fannie and freddie and i think their stocks will trade close to zero by the end of next year. charles: we have seen aggressive mortgage modifications by a lost these entities and the failure rate is astronomical. who is going to pay for all of this? >> it's, of course, we're going to pay for it.
as peter pointed out, the government has no resource. we have touched on how the weak dollar is anti-savings. here is another example of how the average saver in the united states is going to be fleeced yet again. these mortgage modifications will be borne by the average person who has money in a pension fund who has invested in these safe investments because the government backs them. here is another example where the government says if you're a saver we will attack you. charles: peter, it is like the tax taxpayer who did everything right once again is bailing out the person who did the most irresponsible thing in the world and at the same time wall street was so irresponsible and everybody else was irresponsible. >> we have our incentives backwards. it is reverse darwinism, it is survival of the unfittest. the government is rewarding bad behavior and punishing bad good behavior. we reward people who take on too much debt but punish people who save and are frugal. a lot of these people bought houses with zero down and
refinanced so many times they owe two or three times what they initially paid. they're not getting help. they're getting a huge handout and it's being financed by taxing you directly or through inflation to the people who played by the rules and didn't buy houses they couldn't afford and put their money in the bank and aren't loaded up with debt. ultimately, this is going to destroy the currency. if we think we have a bad economy now, wait until we are dealing with runaway inflation. charles: what i don't understand, you brought up the point that both parties have sort of been guilty in this respect. why? what is so important about this? is it that whoever controls fannie and freddie, that it's just like a giant pot of money there? why haven't either party really stepped up to the plate and done the right thing with these guys? >> the republicans, for years bought into the absurd notion of an ownership society and the democrats have always liked to redistribute wealth, and both were incorrect. the republicans have always paid to adam smith and adam smith made cheer that investment in
element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us whether they are from afghanistan or pakistan, yemen or somolia, or anywhere. charles: that was president obama a short while ago in response to a chose call terrorist attack onboard a flight from amsterdam to detroit umar farouk abdul muttallab attempted to blow up the flight with a homemade explosive we have the former head of the c.i.a.'s bin laden tracking unit and author of "marching toward hell" america and islam after iraq. let me start with you, michael. first of all, i got to tell you, i was a little per flexed when this all occurred that i didn't see the president on television reassuring the american public everything was ok. you didn't have a problem with that, though? >> no, because what could he
say? not everything is ok. these folks got into the country with a fair amount of ease. this man was here before in 2008. our southern borders are wide open. why should any american believe that their government can protect them anymore? it's better for the president to be quiet than to lie. charles: i don't know if i want to get into that, because i got to tell you, it hasn't stopped him from going on television before, but, you know, this notion that michael just said that our government can't protect us. that's frightening stuff. is it true? >> well, of course it's true. there are tremendous efforts for all the agencies and foreign al slies -- allies working together to protect america, but no one that has had any responsibility in this field has said it can be done 100%. this particular case shows how easy it is to get through security procedures, even when they are extremely thorough and
very costly, but there are ways to bypass security on airlines and certainly, as was said before, you can get across the border many other ways as well. charles: is there any way that at some point we can make this better? i mean, you're just saying that this is it. at some point these guys are going to be successful, because this was just really, an incredible -- you could call it a christmas miracle at this point that this plane didn't blow up. >> no, i think we can continue to improve technology. i think we have to continue to improve the inspectors' training and particularly the looking for profiles of potential suspects in this. i think the actions of of the passengers and the crew members show that it is difficult to take over an airplane, or to detonate. richard reid tried it and was stopped and now we have had this
last incident, but it's unrealistic to believe that in any open society you will ever be able to stop every attempted actor possible act of terrorism. you have to but you have to try as well. charles: the president gave a speech that sounded like speeches that president bush gave, even clinton gave after a few incidents. we're still, of course, looking for usama bin laden. how much confidence should we have that really the people responsible for this are going to be tracked down and somehow this will resolve somewhere in the near future? >> i don't think we should be confident at all. mr. obama is clearly going back to the clintonian days of trying to pick them up and arrest them or kill them one person at a time. there is far too many of them to do that, sir, and if that's what we're going to focus on, there's going to be be a lot of dead americans. i would just add one thing on the attempt on christmas day. that attempt was 80% successful
for al qaeda. the only thing it didn't have was dead americans and a destroyed airplane. it terrorizeed the american people. it seized up the travel system^ . it caused us to spend more money on security. it's 80% success for al qaeda. it is a very unusual situation. these things are win-win for the enemy. charles: having said that, and you alluded to the fact that we're going after them one suspect at a time, what is a better way to resolve this? >> well, i would like to have the american president stop talking about detect, defeat and dismantle and start using the word innile annihilate whenever we can find them, sir. the only reality here is that we need to kill many, many more than we have. it is a callous thing to say and a hard thing to hear, but if we don't start killing more of them, we're going to have an endless number of these things and america will be bled to
death slowly in terms of money, lives and of course, prestige. charles: having listened to michael say that, this is a guy, i guess he got his training in yemen, and all of a sudden yemen just seemed to have popped up as the next hot spot. he e. i mean, these things move around like a hot restaurant in new york city. is it realistic that we need it go out and kill every one of these guys, and if possible, what are we are waiting for? >> well, yemen has been a hot spot for a long time. we had the u.s.s. cole and there was another attempt in 2000, actually. we had a number of incidents that have occurred within yemen, and there is an ongoing fight there between the government and several different factions, including the al qaeda and the arabian penninsula. the yemoni government does not control its territories so there are open areas for the al qaeda-type groups to assemble and train. we have seen predator attacks recently. we need more of those.
we need some covert operations on the ground. we need to go after them wherever they are, are and that includes in the tribal areas t includes certainly afghanistan, and this particular gentleman was from nigeria. the northern part of nigeria has some radical operations. we ought to get the support from the nigerian government and go after them there. we can't let them have a place to hide. we have to seek them out and essentially destroy or capture all of those so that they can't come at us across borders which are at least seem to be virtually impossible to be seal. charles: what is the main motivation for these guys? we're seeing more and more now. this kid came from a wealthy family. what's turning these people? what's making them so angry? what is creating so much hatred toward america? ought impact of our foreign policy in the islamic world.
our support for israel. our unending support for tyrannies in the muslim world. our military -- charles: wait, wait. it you said our support for tyrannies in the muslim world? >> sure. charles: explain that one. >> we support police states in egypt, saudi arabia, kuwait, algeria, jordan. we are the main backers of tyranny in the muslim world, and until we realize the impact of those policies, we may not want to change a single one of them, but until we realize that that's what motivates our enemies, we're never going to be able to understand them well enough to defeat them. charles: bob, do you agree with that? i don't know. i don't believe that when i hear that. i don't think that somehow we deserve this or that, you know, we brought it on ourselves. that's that sounds like what michael is saying. >> well, i think there are other reasons as well. this particular young man, as you said, was middle class, going to school in the u.k. he certainly didn't come out of the milieu of the middle east or
from a tyrannical state. there are thousands and thousands of websites out there spreading propaganda. there are many cable -- i'm sorry, many satellite networks spreading hate. we now have mosques throughout the western world where hate is being taught, much of it coming from funds from saudi arabia. there are many different reasons, and certainly some of it may be the prior circumstance, but certainly not all of it. charles: guys, thank you very much this afternoon. appreciate it. well, some democrats are asking the obama administration to back off the cap and trade thing, but will it go away or@errorist
attack on christmas day. we return now to the glenn beck program already in progress. charles: what is next for cap and trade legislation in the new year? less than two weeks after claiming a, quote, breakthrough in climate change in copenhagen, president obama has has been asked by blue dogs to abandon the cap and trade bill. maybe the blue dog democrats will step up to the plate,
steve. >> well, we will have to see. if you're a democrat in the senate who has just been through healthcare hell, you're looking at the congressmen that voted for the waxman-markey bill in june who are enjoying a cap and trade hell and who in november are looking at being thrown out, you got to be thinking twice. you got to be thinking president obama, am i really going to support your cap and trade bill and risk my job? it is a real risk to these politicians. charles: a lot of these guys fell on their political swords when they voted for the healthcare bill, so for them, it seems like they have nothing else to lose. >> well, one of my greatest fears is really two things that people need to remember r number one, president obama is printing money like there's no tomorrow. number two, every politician has his price. for ben nelson and healthcare, it was $45 million. for mary landrieu, $300 million. markey captor, and the
waxman-markey cap and trade bill, $3.2 billion. so, congress is for sale in a big waivment it's a real problem. charles: do you think that particularly these guys who call themselves blue dog democrats which is something i love in theory r i haven't really seen it in action, though. i really haven't. do you think that some of some m would stand on principle at this point? >> i certainly hope that there are some out there that will do that, but after what happened in healthcare, i really don't have any confidence in that. i mean, everybody is for sale. it is just a question of price. the only thing that the senate democrats are going to be concerned about is their jobs, and you know, i think if they look at the sort of the hell that democratic congressmen are catching for voting for cap and trade, and just apply that to their own situation, i'm hoping that that is going to be sort of more important than president obama's printing press. >> let's take the worst case scenario. let's say they push forward with this because they're looking at
the midterm elections and saying if we don't get it done by then we'll never get it done f it goes through, what does it mean for america? >> well, it means a variety of things, all bad. first off, energy prices will skyrocket. because all goods and services are produced with energy, the price of all goods and services will go up. we won't be getting more or better quality goods. this is form of inflation. it's very incidious. it is going to reduce economic growth. it's going to reduce tax receipts. it's just bad for everybody. next is the threat to our civil liberties. i mean, the greens want the government to control virtually every aspect of our lives. these are people that want to tell us where to work, how many children we can have, how much energy we can use, how much water we can have, what kind of food we should eat, even on a personal level, how long our showers can be, and how soft our toilet paper can be. i mean, they want to regulate every aspect of our lives. these are high prices to pay especially when you consider you could shut down the united
charles: this holiday season is extra special for a army helicopter pilot that says fate brought him together with an iraqi family and it changed his life forever. >> i was in shock. i couldn't believe that they were calling me back in the army at my age. >> i was really scared, too, because it's iraq, and i have seen all these different kinds of movies about, like, dads dying and bombs there, so it's scary. >> i looked at it and i got upset, and i picked up the telephone and i told my wife that i was going to call a lawyer, because i was not going back into the army. >> why fight it, you know? maybe god has a reason for you to go to iraq. i knew without a doubt he would be ok. there was no doubt in my mind. >> when my wife said maybe god has a reason for you to go to
iraq, those words just stuck with me. the exact day that i arrived in the country, the first thing i saw was an article written about abdul salmon. it said that abdul salmon had been helping the americans. he was a real good guy and then the last sentence jumped out at me, and it said "and he has three children with some kind of dwarfism." they have such a spirit about them. these kids are so happy, despite their conditions, i found them in a shack at the time, and they were just beautiful. ali was the first in line to come up to those soldiers and he's got a spirit that he brought with him to this world that lights up everybody around him. ali had very crooked legs, so i figured maybe this was something
that we could do to help him. saja, the oldest, used to be able to walk but could no longer walk. >> he doesn't walk very good. >> his situation was so complicated that they were not going to be able to do it in iraq, and that blossomed into, well, what can i do to help them get out? i felt lost. i felt that i had been a failure, that here god had put this family in front of me to help them, and i had fallen flat on my face. >> he said it is hard for me to go home now because i haven't done everything i need to do to be able to to get them to the states. he said in order for me to get out, i will have to stay longer.
sorry. so i said whatever you have to do, you do, you know. >> it was christmastime last year. my son-in-law, who was also in iraq with me at the same time, and was allowed to come and spend christmas with me. when he came, the presents that he brought for me was the christmas sweater. reading the book and listening to glenn beck sustained me to redouble the efforts, to find a way to bring the family to the united states. they called me up, and they said everything is here and we said hall lay lieu ya. we knew that their family would come to live with me and my family in idaho. >> it was a lot of work to get them out here. now the next step is getting the treatment that they need, and i
have no doubt that it will be done. >> my daughter's type of dwarf ism is the healthiest. the syndrome they have is degenerative. it progresses to the point that they can no longer walk. it takes away their hearing, their sight and attacks their vital organs, such as their heart. >> sometimes kids ask me why am i so small, and i say because i'm a dwarf and there are some kids that sometimes they say that i have a disease, that people like us have a disease and i say no, we're just born that way. he has a heart of gold, yes, yes. i love him so much. thank you so much. >> what we're going to do is have a christmas tree and